Patterico's Pontifications

2/5/2024

Noah Rothman Worries the GOP Might Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory [Updated]

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:39 pm



[guest post by JVW]

UPDATE
Also writing in NRO, Andy McCarthy urges the rejection of the border bill:

On X/Twitter, Fox News’ superb reporter Bill Melugin has a good analysis of the long-awaited Senate border legislation. It is very fair in presenting what is enticing about the proposal. The problem is that what is enticing is disingenuous and, ultimately, counterproductive.

That is to say, the good in the bipartisan Senate negotiators’ proposal — and there definitely is some — (a) can already be accomplished under current law, and (b) would require faith that the Biden administration will for some reason enforce these provisions even though it has systematically refused to enforce existing border-security provisions. More important, to get the illusory good in the proposal, Congress would have to enact provisions in the deal that would both undermine existing statutory restrictions and etch into our law magnets for illegal immigration.

I take very seriously Mr. McCarthy’s concern that a reelected Biden Administration would indeed abrogate the terms of the agreement and count on their media and academic allies to provide them intellectual coverage for doing so, and I made that point explicitly in my original post. And yes, Mr. McCarthy is absolutely correct that the Biden Administration should not need this sort of prodding to do its damn job in securing the border. Again, I made that very point with respect to Speaker Johnson’s complaints in the post. But short of impeachment — which at this point I would strongly support — of President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, I don’t see how the GOP forces concessions from Joe Biden without at least throwing the Democrats a few bones that they are already collecting even without the agreement. I remain steadfast that this compromise bill is a slight improvement over the status quo.

But I urge readers to take a look at Mr. McCarthy’s dissenting piece as well. As usual, he makes a compelling case.

—- Original Post —-

Regarding the Senate compromise on immigration over the weekend, NRO’s Noah Rothman has some stern words for Republicans who would reject it out of hand as inadequate:

If you could speak to any sentient political observer from ten years ago, when the “Gang of Eight” immigration-reform bill failed, and tell him that Congress had since abandoned amnesty entirely, your interlocutor would probably conclude that the GOP had won the great immigration debate.

Indeed, if you went on to inform your perplexed time-traveler that not only had congressional negotiators produced an enforcement-only immigration bill, but they’d also baked into it provisions designed to contain Russian, Chinese, and Iranian aggression, he would probably conclude that the Republican Party was the dominant force in American politics.

If you then notified him that Democrats controlled both the Senate and the White House while the GOP maintained only the smallest of conceivable House majorities, you might have a medical emergency on your hands. Only when you told your companion that the GOP had somehow convinced itself that it was in its best interests to reject all this would your company recover from the shock of it all. Republicans’ getting in their own way is the perennial constant, after all.

I started out as a skeptic of the compromise, because like most conservatives I begin with the assumption that the Democrats have left themselves enough escape hatches that we will yet again have a Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown moment once Joe Biden is safely reelected and his administration goes back to the pre-compromise status quo ante with a porous border and zero will to do anything about it. But Mr. Rothman begs to differ with my jaundiced take, and sees some significant victories in the compromise:

The compromise legislation released last night appears to fit that bill. The package deal provides funding to increase U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention capacity from 34,000 to 50,000 migrants. It tightens the requirements for those seeking asylum status by limiting the “credible-fear standard” for applicants to specific conditions that might reasonably constitute a “credible fear” of having to return home. It increases the number of judges (and, critically, Immigration Judge Teams) available to process the obscene backlog of immigration claims, and allows some claims to be handled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It puts curbs on the president’s ability to give migrants parole — what Republicans deride as a system of “catch and release” — which presidents of both parties have abused.

Perhaps most consequentially, the bill compels the Department of Homeland Security to turn away all border crossers at any point of entry, legal or otherwise, once officials encounter either a seven-day rolling average of 5,000 border crossers per day or 8,500 migrants on a single day. The provision ensures that Joe Biden would be legally compelled to take the migrant crisis over which he has presided — one that featured 302,043 encounters along the border just last month — seriously.

Mr. Rothman takes the measure of House Republicans’ criticism of the compromise and finds it wanting. While acknowledging that it is legitimate for Speaker Mike Johnson to resent the fact that Congress is being called upon to force the Administration to enforce existing law, but he cites my new favorite reporter, Bill Melugin, to show that Republicans are fundamentally misunderstanding a key provision. Rather than triggering the temporary suspension of border crossings only when DHS observes a daily average of 5,000 people crossing the border illegally over seven consecutive days, the suspension is triggered if DHS averages 5,000 or more encounters over that period. Not all of those whom DHS encounters will be allowed to remain on this side of the border; a huge chunk of those illegal crossers will be sent back, yet their numbers will still trigger the enactment of the automatic border shut down.

If Mr. Melguin is correct in his assessment, this sounds like a pretty good bill for Republicans, but with a few caveats. I join House Republicans in worrying that the President still reserves the right to claim a “national emergency” and keep the border open for up to 45 days even if the encounter threshold is met. I am also interested in some claims by Senate Republicans that the Secretary of Homeland Security can usurp the President’s authority and keep the border open on his or her own volation. I would hope the House negotiators could whittle that down to 15 days, and only upon the order of the President, thereafter requiring the assent of Congress. Sen. Tom Cotton’s concerns that the Secretary of DHS now has authority to grant work visas without having to first process the asylum-seeker through immigration court may indeed be granting too much authority to a political appointee. And yes, we do issue up to 50,000 additional visas over the next five years. But as Mr. Rothman’s piece has pointed out, the GOP continues to hold firm on the issue of amnesty and pathway to citizenship, so Democrats are going to have to negotiate — and, one would hope, agree to serious compromises — if they really want to make this a priority of theirs.

So I guess I’ve come around to believe that this compromise represents a decent improvement over the present situation and should be ratified, as long as the House can force a few cosmetic changes. Some of the more politically inclined might worry that this would be handing an election-year “win” over to Biden Administration, but if the GOP can’t market this to voters as a matter where Republicans forced the Biden Administration to drop its obstinance and bow to reality, then the party really doesn’t deserve any sort of success this November anyway. And as much as House firebrands and the utter nimrod who appears poised to lead them in November find this to be a complete capitulation to the Deep State or whomever the enemy of the day is, it should be noted that the left-wing Third Worldists and open-borders crowd is also up in arms about this legislation, suggesting that it cuts into their ideal of waves and waves of poor, unskilled, and uneducated immigrants providing them with children who will form the core of the voters for the future social welfare big government anti-capitalist state.

The GOP has an opportunity to vote yes on this compromise, then run ads in swing states pointing out that Democrats refused to take border security seriously until busloads of immigrants began arriving straight to their communities without having been first processed and taken care of in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. One of the few Republican victories in the Biden Era has been to make a broad swath of America of all parties and ideologies see that the broken system is a problem for all Americans, not just those in border states. It would be a shame if Republicans walked away from a meaningful improvement they could take credit for, just because they prefer bitching about our problems to solving them.

– JVW

115 Responses to “Noah Rothman Worries the GOP Might Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory [Updated]”

  1. The bill still allows up to 2 million new immigrant workers, over and above the current legal immigration scheme. It is hard for MAGA to accept that, as rampant immigration and “open borders” is at the core of their economic distress. It also legalizes some practices that Biden has illegally instituted, such as parole by default.

    Sure, it may slow the tide, but it doesn’t have to, and those who distrust Biden are not unreasonable in that distrust.

    And we haven’t even gotten to the irrational issues, which abound. I expect the House to refuse to vote on this although a discharge petition could happen if some GOP Congressmen show resolve.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  2. I think that the GOP plan is to get a somewhat better deal, akin to Clinton vetoing Welfare Reform twice before he got something he could live with. Yes, Ukraine (Israel is not in danger), but the Immigration issue is existential for quite a few Americans. That has to matter.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  3. Perhaps most consequentially, the bill compels the Department of Homeland Security to turn away all border crossers at any point of entry, legal or otherwise, once officials encounter either a seven-day rolling average of 5,000 border crossers per day or 8,500 migrants on a single day.

    Do the math. That’s approaching 2 million a year. If Biden is letting far more than that in now, hang him out to dry. But don’t settle for “only 2 million” as some kind of win.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  4. Do the math. That’s approaching 2 million a year.

    No, you’re making the same mistake that Noah Rothman and Bill Melguin point out that House Republicans are making. This bill does not say that an average of 5,000 “refugees” per day get to make illegal crossings and receive asylum in the U.S. If an average of 6,000 people come to the border seeking asylum but 5,500 of them are turned away and sent back, that still counts as triggering the automatic stop. So what ought to be good about this bill in Republican eyes is that Democrats will have to start discouraging the massing of illegal immigrants at our borders. And given that the compromise also begins to restrict who gets counted as legitimate asylum seekers (check out how Melguin characterizes it in this Tweet), unless Democrats engage in their usual chicanery we should see fewer people attempting to enter the United States illegally under the provisions of this bill, and those who do are supposed to be detained, processed, and sent back to their country of original much more quickly.

    JVW (b23fe4)

  5. The GOP position – Any immigration “solution” not endorsed by DJT is DOA.

    John Boddie (dcf99c)

  6. Funny that four out of five of Trump’s children came from the wombs of immigrant mothers.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  7. “It would be a shame if Republicans walked away from a meaningful improvement they could take credit for, just because they prefer bitching about our problems to solving them.”

    Okay. $10 million for Ukraine is a meaningful improvement, too. Democrats want $60 million, so Republicans can agree to give the other $50 million only after we have a complete border solution. Democrats wouldn’t walk away from a “meaningful improvement” all around.

    lloyd (0fd644)

  8. You do mean billions and not millions, right lloyd? Sixty million dollars is a rounding error for Washington DC these days.

    JVW (b23fe4)

  9. million billion

    lloyd (0fd644)

  10. Yeah, I caught it but was slower than you JVW.

    lloyd (0fd644)

  11. UPDATE
    Also writing in NRO, Andy McCarthy urges the rejection of the border bill:

    On X/Twitter, Fox News’ superb reporter Bill Melugin has a good analysis of the long-awaited Senate border legislation. It is very fair in presenting what is enticing about the proposal. The problem is that what is enticing is disingenuous and, ultimately, counterproductive.

    That is to say, the good in the bipartisan Senate negotiators’ proposal — and there definitely is some — (a) can already be accomplished under current law, and (b) would require faith that the Biden administration will for some reason enforce these provisions even though it has systematically refused to enforce existing border-security provisions. More important, to get the illusory good in the proposal, Congress would have to enact provisions in the deal that would both undermine existing statutory restrictions and etch into our law magnets for illegal immigration.

    I take very seriously Mr. McCarthy’s concern that a reelected Biden Administration would indeed abrogate the terms of the agreement and count on their media and academic allies to provide them intellectual coverage for doing so, and I made that point explicitly in my original post. And yes, Mr. McCarthy is absolutely correct that the Biden Administration should not need this sort of prodding to do its damn job in securing the border. Again, I made that very point with respect to Speaker Johnson’s complaints in the post. But short of impeachment — which at this point I would strongly support — of President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, I don’t see how the GOP forces concessions from Joe Biden without at least throwing the Democrats a few bones that they are already collecting even without the agreement. I remain steadfast that this compromise bill is a slight improvement over the status quo.

    But I urge readers to take a look at Mr. McCarthy’s dissenting piece as well. As usual, he makes a compelling case.

    JVW (b23fe4)

  12. Frankly, I find Andrew McCarthy too partisan for my taste. Bill Melugin and the Border Patrol union are far more reliable and they see what I see: one of the biggest border game-changers in memory. The only reason to reject it is some combination of 1) ignorance about what the real problem at the border is (hint: it’s asylum) or 2) ignorance about the meaning of the 5,000 number (does not mean 5,000 people sneaking in illegally but 5,000 encounters which will mostly be presenting themselves for asylum); 3) wanting the crisis to continue for the benefit of the Donald Trump (such people do not actually care about the border) or 4) fear of pig-ignorant voters laboring under the first two listed forms of ignorance.

    There is literally nothing this party cannot fuck up and it’s primarily because a bunch of pitifully ignorant yahoos out there who know nothing about asylum just yell: “enforce the law already on the books!” Take a look at the par-IQ responses to any of Melugin’s tweets. I despise these people and want nothing to do with them.

    Anyone who actually wants to understand the issue ought to go listen to the recent Advisory Opinions Podcast which lays it all out. Or repeat your idiotic and inaccurate MAGA slogans, your choice. But if you oppose this you are part of the problem.

    Patterico (0f4039)

  13. Could it be tweaked around the edges in theory? Sure. But in practice any deal that Dems agree to is by definition unacceptable to the morons in the GOP base. Even a deal as awesome as this. And this deal is awesome. It’s the greatest legislative proposal on immigration I have seen since I started this site in 2003.

    Fuck the Republican Party.

    Patterico (0f4039)

  14. Never trumpers and moderate corporate drones want bill to defeat trump. Trump and the majority of republicans who are populists don’t want a bill that would help Biden. We on the left don’t want it either. As soon as democrats get house we legalize Illegals and allow them to vote. AOC becomes president. Places in liberal areas are allowing immigrants to vote in local elections now. This is easier then trying to change the electoral system that favors a white conservative minority. With 7,000,000+ majority Biden only won electoral collage by 43,000 votes. Why shouldn’t democrats get an electorate that overwhelms the electoral system that is undemocratic now.

    asset (7b1269)

  15. @4 “If an average of 6,000 people come to the border seeking asylum but 5,500 of them are turned away and sent back, that still counts as triggering the automatic stop.”

    That’s the theory. Now, let’s deal with reality. On average, only 14% of border get turned away under this administration. This means the 5,000 threshold will result in 4,300 per day, or 1.5million per year. This, of course, are only the ones that get caught.

    Also, let’s keep in mind the logistics involved with turning people back. Once they’ve entered our territory you don’t just turn them around and have them walk back. Let’s not be naive. There’s an entire legal process and the other country has to accept each one. We are not alone with this problem. Britain has a Rwanda plan where migrants must wait there to apply for asylum. This mirrors our Remain in Mexico plan Biden ditched. Yes, asylum is the main problem, but the only real workable solution is to process asylum claims only to those who apply outside the country. Once they’re in our country, the game is pretty much over.

    There are also provisions in the deal that make things worse: immediate work authorization, millions for left wing NGOs and legal assistance to those breaking the law.

    Overall, is it better than what we have now? Probably, but history shows we have one chance to get this right every couple of decades. We haven’t gotten it right ever. Remain in Mexico, halt catch-and-release, tighten asylum rules, ditch the 5000 threshold. These should be the bare minimum, and the deal doesn’t have this.

    lloyd (0fd644)

  16. *only 14% of border crossers get turned away

    lloyd (0fd644)

  17. Because of asylum, which this bill largely fixes.

    I will never forgive Republicans for killing this.

    Patterico (0f4039)

  18. And Biden cannot do anything about asylum seekers. He can’t just turn them away. The law has to change for that.

    But I am arguing in the language of facts and logic and Trump drones don’t speak that. Have we heard from NJRob or whembly to tell us how they oppose this bill that would afruwllly fix the situation they pretend to care about?

    Patterico (0f4039)

  19. just because they prefer bitching about our problems to solving them.

    That’s not the choice.

    The choice is between either bitching about it or not bitching about it.

    The dirty little secret that the restrictionists don’t want to tell you is that they don’t believe that even HR 2 will “fix” the “problem.”

    It will change asylum law (someone must prove that there was not a safe place to go to in their own country) so that it tends to apply only to VIPs who fear arrest or worse by the central government, or who have been told “leave the country or face arrest.” These will be the people who can apply
    for asylum in their home country’s capital. Demonstrators, for instance,

    But people will be sent back to their deaths. And get killed trying to cross the border or get to it.

    The bill reduces semi-legal immigration, at the expense of increasing totally illegal immigration of people without giving the U.S> government any opportunity to question them since nobody will want to get caught, (unless the U,S. government makes it a point to accept a certain fraction, but it will probably be too low to affect things much)

    The opponents are saying that people who are not caught are not counted in the 5,000 or 8,500 (mandatory) or 4,000 average (voluntary) or, 75% – say 3,000 – maximum needed to resume processing asylum claims. I don’t knoww if that is true.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  20. This bill is only “good” if we have an executive that in good faith, enforces the law.

    What has this Biden Administration have done to give us assurances that they’re acting in good faith? We’re literally nearing a constitutional crisis on this…

    In theory, the asylum changes is good… but, Biden can ignore it, just like he’s ignoring the law today.

    Furthermore, the most vexing imo is that the D.C. circuit is *the* jurisdiction to resolve border/immigration controversies. That’s a hard no from me.

    Speaking of the daily average “head count” triggers… that’s only for contiguous nations, meaning Mexico and Canada. Any other migrants whom are not Mexicans/Canadians are NOT counted… so, to me its worthless. Actually, it’s more than worthless as it gives open border policies law makers “cover” by saying “we’re doing something”.

    @JVW and @Paterico:
    This isn’t a scenario where we shouldn’t let “perfect” be the enemy of progress.

    This is a scenario where NO DEAL is better than this deal.

    And it’s not like the GOP, in the house, is totally abdicating from the negotiation when they ALREADY passed two immigration bills in:
    HR2
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/all-info
    and
    HR29
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/29/all-info?s=1&r=84

    Why must we take what the Senate pass as the baseline, over what the Republicans has already passed.

    whembly (5f7596)

  21. HR 29 apparently authorizes the Secretary of DHS to stop all legal entry (of non-citizens?) into the United States. It’ in committee,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  22. The immigration issue has traps and loopholes on both sides, For instance the special visas for some Afghans was sabotaged by Trump, and Biden did not want to reverse it.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  23. NRO editor’s take:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/no-to-the-border-deal/


    The bill is, to be sure, the best bipartisan immigration bill we’ve seen out of Washington, D.C., in decades, although that is an extremely low standard. The deal has worthy provisions, but it’s not going to compel Joe Biden to do anything he doesn’t want to and further entrenches a system that has been fundamentally distorted by mass bogus asylum claims.

    As long as our immigration system is in thrall to the fiction that migrants who are overwhelmingly coming here for jobs are really asylum seekers, and ties itself up in knots considering these largely meritless claims, we are going to have trouble establishing order at the border. As Donald Trump showed in the latter part of his first term, controlling the border requires excluding the migrants from the U.S. in the first place. Then, barring extraordinary circumstances, anyone making it through the cracks should be detained and removed (the additional resources in the deal for these purposes are a good thing).

    The cause of border security would be advanced much further if Congress dispensed with most of this bill and just created a Title 42–style authority that isn’t triggered or limited in any way. Prohibiting illegal immigrants from entering the country is the best tool against illegal immigration. As Ronald Reagan said, there are no easy answers, but there are simple ones.

    whembly (5f7596)

  24. Well, I see the perfect will once again be the mortal enemy and executioner of the good. And it will of course be phony perfection, because either Trump will fail at dictatorship and not get anything passed, or he will succeed, and it won’t matter what the law is, because it will be changed whimsically.

    But Whembly has his excuse, so there is that.

    Appalled (9b8c49)

  25. @24

    Well, I see the perfect will once again be the mortal enemy and executioner of the good. And it will of course be phony perfection, because either Trump will fail at dictatorship and not get anything passed, or he will succeed, and it won’t matter what the law is, because it will be changed whimsically.

    But Whembly has his excuse, so there is that.

    Appalled (9b8c49) — 2/6/2024 @ 10:20 am

    So you believe Biden will enforce this bill? Despite laws currently on the books that he refused to enforce?

    I’m not seeking “perfection”.

    That’s impossible.

    What I do want to highlight is the disingenuous arguments that things will be “better” post Senate bill passage.

    There’s zero indication from the Biden administration that they would enforce this.

    So, why not advocate for the House’s HR2 and HR29 bills instead?

    Why must we take this specific Senate bill?

    whembly (5f7596)

  26. > Why must we take this specific Senate bill?

    Because this bill can probably pass the Senate, and the others will be filibustered. And even if you abolish the filibuster, in the Senate you have to get enough Democratic votes to put together a majority, and neither of those bills can do that.

    The structure of the Senate, and its rules, require that legislation be a compromise, and nobody is going to get everything they want.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  27. whembly,

    As a good GOP member, I would think you would expect that the GOP would win in November. Meaning that honest enforcement would come with Trump, and something better would exist in the meantime. Trump has shown his lousy Congressional management skills — he won’t get a better bill out of our constitutional system.

    The reason you take a bi-partisan bill is that it will pass. The others won’t. You build on the bill you can pass. Haven’t Democrats done that for years?

    If the border mess is why you can’t abide Biden and find those of us who vote for him somehow un-American, then your current stance has really got to really be giving you some cognitive dissonance.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  28. HR2 was dead on arrival in the Senate months ago, and nobody cared. The House will return the favor and suddenly everyone’s head is on fire.

    Maybe someone who thinks the Senate bill is good but not great can explain what they didn’t like about HR2. Why isn’t it better? But, that might require admitting that the stonewalling started a long time ago, and not by Trump or the GOP.

    lloyd (87be35)

  29. @27

    whembly,

    As a good GOP member, I would think you would expect that the GOP would win in November.

    I actually don’t think GOP would win, if it’s Trump at the top of the ticket.

    I think it’d be closer to the ’22 midterm, at best for GOP.

    Meaning that honest enforcement would come with Trump, and something better would exist in the meantime. Trump has shown his lousy Congressional management skills — he won’t get a better bill out of our constitutional system.

    The reason you take a bi-partisan bill is that it will pass. The others won’t. You build on the bill you can pass. Haven’t Democrats done that for years?

    But it won’t pass the House either.

    Now what?

    I’d prefer that the Senate takes up HR2 / HR29 as a framework, then compromise as needed to get something palatable to get to 60 votes.

    If the border mess is why you can’t abide Biden

    Correct. A 2nd Biden term is untenable for me.

    and find those of us who vote for him somehow un-American, then your current stance has really got to really be giving you some cognitive dissonance.

    Appalled (0ae745) — 2/6/2024 @ 11:29 am

    ??? I’ve never claim Biden voters are un-American.

    Vote however you wish.

    WE all deserve the candidates that are voted in, and as such deserves the ugly polices that comes our way.

    whembly (5f7596)

  30. I do find it interesting that those who intend to vote for Biden no matter what are demanding compromise from those of us on the right that consider Biden’s policies untenable.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  31. Patterico (0f4039) — 2/6/2024 @ 7:09 am

    You’re just engaging in that same old left wing, open borders narrative, Patterico, for supporting the Lankford bill. Rob told me so. And those open borders socialists at the WSJ also support it. What is this world coming to.

    Do Republicans want to better secure the U.S. border, or do they want to keep what has become an open sore festering for another year as an election issue? That’s the choice presented to Congress this week with the rollout of the Senate’s bipartisan border security bill, and we’ll soon learn what the GOP really wants.

    By any honest reckoning, this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. Previous immigration talks have involved trading security measures for legalizing more immigration. There is little of the latter in this bill—nothing for nearly all of the Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children, no general pathway to citizenship or green cards for most illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

    This is almost entirely a border security bill, and its provisions include long-time GOP priorities that the party’s restrictionists could never have passed only a few months ago. Republicans demanded border measures last year as the price for passing military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Pacific allies. Democrats resisted at first but later agreed to negotiate and have made concessions that are infuriating the open-borders left. Will Republicans now abandon what they claimed to want?

    The bill’s details are worth describing because they’re crucial to reducing the current incentives for migrants to come to the U.S. border. Most important, the bill rewrites the standard and process for granting asylum in the U.S.

    Under current law and practice, migrants cross the border, turn themselves in to border patrol agents, and claim asylum. If they pass the deliberately low bar for claiming “credible fear” of persecution, they are given a date for a future asylum hearing and released into the U.S. The wait can take years, and many never show up. This is the policy that has become known as “catch and release.”

    The new bill raises the bar for that initial border screening for credible fear to a “reasonable possibility” of persecution. Toughening the asylum standard was a priority of the Trump Administration, but a statutory change is needed to make it permanent. Migrants will have to show they couldn’t have moved elsewhere in their own country to avoid persecution before seeking refuge in the U.S.

    The bill also includes an expedited review process for asylum with a stay-or-deport decision within 90-180 days. There is money for 50,000 detention beds while migrants are awaiting review. If there are more migrants arriving than can be detained, the overflow will be enrolled in mandatory alternatives-to-detention programs that use tools such as ankle bracelets or reporting curfews. No more catch and release without consequences.

    The bill also reforms humanitarian parole. Migrants will no long be able to register using the Biden CBP One App to gain free entry at a border crossing and an immediate work permit.

    The bill doesn’t include a cap on the number of parolees in a year, as some Republicans sought. But the tightened rules for claiming parole should reduce the incentives to come, and parole is vital in some cases such as Ukrainians or Afghan allies. One disappointment is that the bill lets the Administration continue its parole programs for Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants who apply in their home capitals.

    The bill also includes an emergency provision mandating that the border be closed if the average showing up each day for a week is 5,000. This is to stop the current mess in which border crossings are overwhelmed. If a shutdown is triggered, all migrants will be deported until the number of arrivees falls 25% and the border patrol has regained control. The provision does not mean that migration is unchecked up to 5,000 a day.

    GOP critics of the bill are pointing to the bill’s modest expansion of legal visas—about 50,000 a year for employment and family visas. But these immigrants aren’t pouring over the border willy-nilly. They are following legal rules. Republicans claim to oppose illegal immigration, but this complaint shows that some really oppose all immigration.

    The Senate bill is a major improvement over the status quo, as the Border Patrol union said Monday in endorsing it. The bill would go far to reduce the incentives for illegal migration and provide new tools to the executive branch to control it. Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, who negotiated for the GOP, deserves thanks for digging into the policy nuances and writing a bill that Mr. Trump never came close to getting when he was President.

    This is a deal that can help our country once enacted. Instead, because Trump feels this would hurt his election chances, he’s telling all his beholden to kill it, in yet another example of Trump putting his personal interests above his country’s, and my party is going right down that sewer. Infuriating.

    Paul Montagu (383f45)

  32. @30, I intend to vote for Haley. Hopefully the GOP primary process gives me the chance. I won’t vote for Trump.

    I think Haley crushes Biden in the general, I think Trump is a toss up.

    Time123 (79a1b8)

  33. Does g.o.p. keep house in 2024? Several court rulings in southern states add new majority black districts. NY is in process to re-gerrymander districts that favor democrats. In presidential years more democrats come out to vote and electorate becomes 2% less white every four years. Finally even if your a democrat who thinks Biden sucks you can still vote for democrat congress person to protect abortion rights.

    asset (4c76a6)

  34. Again, I will add what makes you think any Democrat administration would enforce any immigration laws? Especially in the light of the progressive-heavy DC Circuit courts adjudication all immigration cases?

    Any temporary gains or “progress” here is really undermined by everything else in this bill.

    GOP House has sent Immigration reforms to Schumer and it sat on his desk for 9 months. The Senate could’ve taken THAT bill, and hammered out some compromises.

    Our border/immigration disaster is like a forest fire.

    There are some buckets of water that may help, provided we have an executive who faithfully enforces the law, that may help extinguish this fire. But the majority of the senate bill is like add gasoline to the fire rather than to control it.

    It’s better if there was no deal, than this Senate bill.

    This is a byproduct of having a divided government.

    If border hawks voters want meaningful reforms, they need to vote enough of “their guys/gals” to push this issue.

    whembly (5f7596)

  35. This Senate bill is exactly like that of Obamacare.

    While there was some good things in it, as a whole, it made it worse for everyone else.

    Whenever our government passes massive comprehensive bills, it’s near impossible to repeal/roll-back if the opposition takes back the government.

    whembly (5f7596)

  36. John Cornyn tells us he’s a NO on moving ahead with the bill tomorrow

    — Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 6, 2024

    The senate bill is dead. They can’t even pass that.

    While the House passed two bills for Senate to consider is sitting on Schumer’s desk.

    whembly (5f7596)

  37. Thank you whembly for saving me the response. You brought up the same issues I would.

    NJRob (07b945)

  38. Biden can absolutely do something about asylum seekers. He could re-enact Remain in Mexico and First Safe Country.

    But he isn’t. Because he has no intention of slowing illegal migration, bill or no bill.

    SaveFarris (db755c)

  39. This is a scenario where NO DEAL is better than this deal.

    whembly, do you understand how asylum works, and what a huge part of the problem it is?

    Someone presents himself at the border and claims asylum. What must the government do under current law? What could the government do under this bill?

    If Biden tried to turn that person away under current law what would a court do? What options does the current law give him to change that?

    If you can’t answer these questions off the top of your head you have no business opining about the best bill to deal with the immigration process in my adult lifetime.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  40. This is a deal that can help our country once enacted. Instead, because Trump feels this would hurt his election chances, he’s telling all his beholden to kill it, in yet another example of Trump putting his personal interests above his country’s, and my party is going right down that sewer. Infuriating.

    Infuriating is an understatement.

    Even if I liked the Republican party, this episode would be enough to estrange me from it for years to come. Just this one single episode.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  41. It’s all driven by small donors with a whembly-level understanding of the issues who think Biden can just “CLOSE THE BORDER!!!1!” under current law and just doesn’t want to.

    We let the dumbest people in the country dictate our policy.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  42. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwLYMPLYbo

    Here’s Biden. Work it out.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  43. whembly (5f7596) — 2/6/2024 @ 2:05 pm

    whembly, that’s not an argument against the bill, it’s an argument against Democrats.
    Why couldn’t Trump think about it this way: That Congress should pass the bill, but you have to elect him to have it administered competently and with proper enforcement.
    But no, instead, he was agin it from the get-go, which means he’s also against Ukraine and he’s for Putin and his terrorist acts.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  44. Even if I liked the Republican party, this episode would be enough to estrange me from it for years to come. Just this one single episode.

    OK, you are going to have to draw me a picture here. While this isn’t great, remember that this deal is the grudging, foot-dragging, back-to-the-wall acceptance of the guy you voted for. They guy who has been doing all these things at the border that you assert you oppose.

    Now, I suspect that, like me, you are primarily concerned with Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, and are not directly affected harmed by the flood of cheap labor. But there are people who have other priorities and at the very least you could show some contrition for supporting Biden. You could have voted for Mickey Mouse.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  45. It’s not that your vote carried California.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  46. Someone presents himself at the border and claims asylum. What must the government do under current law?

    Not immediately shoot them in the head.
    They CAN, however, demand they remain in Mexico until their case is adjudicated. Something which Biden abdicated on Day 1 and refuses to re-implement.

    What could the government do under this bill?

    Let in 1.8 million Mexican/Canadians and literally unlimited asylum seekers from every other corner of the world. The United States border would no longer functionally exist.

    If Biden tried to turn that person away under current law what would a court do?

    Little to nothing, per numerous SCOTUS rulings at this point (Arizona v. US, Biden v. Texas, DHS v. Texas). Consistently, SCOTUS has deferred to the Executive Branch on all matters immigration.

    What options does the current law give him to change that?

    The option to refuse entry.
    The option to enforce existing law.
    The option to stop suing states that attempt to enforce existing law.

    SaveFarris (5b3d84)

  47. @39

    This is a scenario where NO DEAL is better than this deal.

    whembly, do you understand how asylum works, and what a huge part of the problem it is?

    Yes. Do you?

    Someone presents himself at the border and claims asylum. What must the government do under current law?

    Oh, they have to be “processed”, as in, they cannot be turned away at face value.

    Oh, and by the F’ing way, Pat, the government is mandated to detain asylum seekers. See Title 8, U.S. Code, §1225(b)(1)(B)(IV):
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225

    If the officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning of clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.

    Guess who’s not enforcing that provision of the law?

    What could the government do under this bill?

    In theory, it tightens up the criterions of claiming asylum. But, there are other provisions that would allow the Secretary, or the asylum judges additional discretion for the applicants to stay.

    Guess what?

    Given that the Biden administration refuses to enforce Title 8, U.S. Code, §1225(b)(1)(B)(IV), why the ever loving GOD should you believe that Biden would, in good faith, enforce the provisions in this bill?

    If Biden tried to turn that person away under current law what would a court do? What options does the current law give him to change that?

    If you can’t answer these questions off the top of your head you have no business opining about the best bill to deal with the immigration process in my adult lifetime.

    Patterico (dcca7c) — 2/6/2024 @ 6:50 pm

    Oh get off your high horse Pat.

    Where the HELL have you been in advocating for HR2 / HR29 that was actually PASSED in the house?

    If the Senate bill wasn’t good enough to get the GOP on board, THEN IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    Welcome to divided government.

    whembly (5f7596)

  48. @41

    It’s all driven by small donors with a whembly-level understanding of the issues who think Biden can just “CLOSE THE BORDER!!!1!” under current law and just doesn’t want to.

    We let the dumbest people in the country dictate our policy.

    Patterico (dcca7c) — 2/6/2024 @ 6:52 pm

    I swear to god, you must have amnesia.

    Did the Trump years really damage your memory such that you don’t remember Trump employing the “Remain in Mexico” Policy?
    https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Remain-in-Mexico_en.pdf

    Presidents, under the Immigration Act, does have powers to literally shut down the border. He can even shut it down, for any reason and for any class of people. He can shut it all down, except for transportation goods.

    But, Biden, in a fit of incoherence, rescinded this policy on day one.

    whembly (5f7596)

  49. They CAN, however, demand they remain in Mexico until their case is adjudicated. Something which Biden abdicated on Day 1 and refuses to re-implement.

    So you think COVID is still an emergency?

    Patterico (b961cd)

  50. Guess who’s not enforcing that provision of the law?

    The guy who has nowhere to put them because Congress has not funded sufficient detention facilities.

    Patterico (b961cd)

  51. Wait, so your big hope is that Remain in Mexico (70,000 people enrolled in program) would solve our problem and not an impossible resumption of Title 42 restrictions (1.8 million turned back).

    That’s like saying we should fix the debt by reducing foreign aid while not touching entitlements. The numbers of the real problem dwarf the solution people love to talk about because it sounds easy.

    I might have thought rather than being whipsawed between different policies from president to president it might have been better to have a permanent legislative fix. But no, we can’t do that, because even though it makes sense the machine has moved against it in fealty to Trump. I expected you to be with the machine because you always are and shocker of all shockers there you are.

    Patterico (b961cd)

  52. If the Senate bill wasn’t good enough to get the GOP on board, THEN IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    Lol. Any bill Democrats will agree to is by definition not good enough for the GOP because they listen to people like you.

    Patterico (b961cd)

  53. This is the best bill in decades on the merits but you don’t give a wet fart about the merits and I knew you wouldn’t.

    Patterico (b961cd)

  54. @49

    They CAN, however, demand they remain in Mexico until their case is adjudicated. Something which Biden abdicated on Day 1 and refuses to re-implement.

    So you think COVID is still an emergency?

    Patterico (b961cd) — 2/7/2024 @ 6:34 am

    Not COVID… but the swarm of human mass whereby border patrols cannot possibly process them at the border *IS* a health/security emergency.

    whembly (5f7596)

  55. @50

    Guess who’s not enforcing that provision of the law?

    The guy who has nowhere to put them because Congress has not funded sufficient detention facilities.

    Patterico (b961cd) — 2/7/2024 @ 6:35 am

    The guy doesn’t get to wave them through to stay in the US that contravenes the law.

    The guy should stop them at the border and tell them to go home.

    whembly (5f7596)

  56. @51

    Wait, so your big hope is that Remain in Mexico (70,000 people enrolled in program) would solve our problem and not an impossible resumption of Title 42 restrictions (1.8 million turned back).

    That’s like saying we should fix the debt by reducing foreign aid while not touching entitlements. The numbers of the real problem dwarf the solution people love to talk about because it sounds easy.

    I might have thought rather than being whipsawed between different policies from president to president it might have been better to have a permanent legislative fix. But no, we can’t do that, because even though it makes sense the machine has moved against it in fealty to Trump. I expected you to be with the machine because you always are and shocker of all shockers there you are.

    Patterico (b961cd) — 2/7/2024 @ 6:52 am

    If you’re looking for some policy that’s “better” than current state, you can’t ignore that the Remain in Mexico was a success.

    Again, why are you ignoring the fact that the House has already passed HR2 / HR29?

    What’s stopping the Senate from taking that up, and hammering out some compromises there?

    You’ll say: “Because it won’t pass the Senate”.

    And I’ll say: Why not?

    HR2 / HR 29, actually legislation that’s been passed in one house has one of the best immigration packages we’ve seen in a long time. Yet, you are MORE pissed at the Senate GOP who doesn’t like the Senate Bill.

    Here’s the thing I don’t think Democrats are serious about it, at all. Chuck Schumer has REFUSED to allow amendments to the current Senate bill. Why is that?

    whembly (5f7596)

  57. @52

    If the Senate bill wasn’t good enough to get the GOP on board, THEN IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

    Lol. Any bill Democrats will agree to is by definition not good enough for the GOP because they listen to people like you.

    Patterico (b961cd) — 2/7/2024 @ 6:53 am

    I’m just a rando joe yammering about politics into the ether here.

    But, you’re right, this isn’t good enough. I’ve yet to see anything in this Senate bill, other than a more orderly processing of nearly 2millions migrants a year.

    Patrick. That’s insane. And I question the sanity of those who refuse to acknowledge this reality.

    Better to hold out for better deal, while Democrats suffers the pain for their advocacy of their open border policies.

    whembly (5f7596)

  58. @53

    This is the best bill in decades on the merits but you don’t give a wet fart about the merits and I knew you wouldn’t.

    Patterico (b961cd) — 2/7/2024 @ 6:54 am

    LOL.

    Okay, sure.

    whembly (5f7596)

  59. So you think COVID is still an emergency?

    Nah. My governor gave that up last year, although she tried to ban guns under the health laws so who knows.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  60. Inserting some clarifying language into the numerical triggers would help a lot.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  61. This bill largely fixes the problem, because asylum is the problem, and this bill gives the very first permanent not-tied-to-COVID authority to the president to simply turn away asylum seekers — who once they present themselves for asylum are not “illegals” under the law.

    But Trump does not want the problem fixed because having the problem not fixed helps him get elected. So he tells his mindless drones to oppose the bill and because they have no ability to do anything but follow partisan orders, they do.

    Absolutely infuriating.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  62. The best bill in decades is HR2, which is the only border bill which has passed a chamber.

    lloyd (9387b4)

  63. If you’re looking for some policy that’s “better” than current state, you can’t ignore that the Remain in Mexico was a success.

    70,000 whole people! It’s like arguing cutting a few million in foreign aid is a “success” in making a dent in a 34 trillion dollar debt.

    Patterico (2b55ca)

  64. Perhaps lloyd can tell us the substantive differences between HR2 and the Senate bill that make it cogent to say it would be better to have no bill at all.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  65. The best summary of the new bill I have seen is from Bill Melugin, who is name-checked in the post. Here is his summary:

    NEW: My initial highlights from the border deal.

    – No amnesty/legalization of anyone already in the U.S. illegally.

    – Funds an increase in ICE detention capacity to approx. 50,000 from the current 34,000.

    At 7 day rolling average of 5,000 encounters per day, or 8,500 encounters in a single day, DHS is *required* to shut the border down, and turn away anyone who crosses. No new asylum claims will be allowed and anybody crossing will be removed. Would end the whole idea of “I made it to U.S. soil, you have to process me.” That would be over, Border Patrol would not process the illegal crosser and they would be removed – no asylum claim permitted, unless its made at a port of entry.

    This does not mean 5,000 are “allowed in” before this authority kicks in. Single adults would be detained, families would be released via ATD (alternatives to detention), and asylum cases would be fast tracked to months rather than years under a new rapid/expedited expulsion system. Those who fail would be quickly removed from the US. Those who initially pass would be released with work authorization and 90 day supervision until final asylum claim is determined.

    – The shut down authority doesn’t drop until crossings decrease significantly in the days following the shut down.

    – Significantly tougher asylum requirements, and a higher credible fear standard, including three bars to eligibility. 1) Criminal history, 2) Could they have resettled in another country on the way to the US? 3) Could they have resettled somewhere else in their own country? Just saying you’re scared to return home will no longer be enough in initial interview.

    – It *appears* that the legislation would move asylum claim decisions away from immigration judges, and instead have them be handled by USCIS.

    – $1.4 billion in FEMA funding available for disbursement to NGOs/municipalities, but some of that money doesn’t unlock until key border security metrics are hit with ICE detention beds, ICE & Border Patrol new hires, and at least 1,500 deportation flights.

    – Ends use of parole releases via CBP One app, and ends parole for illegal crossers between ports of entry.

    – Keeps humanitarian parole as it was originally intended (medical procedures, court cases, etc), and keeps the current Biden admin parole program in place for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans.

    – 50,000 new visas over 5 years.

    – Fuding to hire hundreds more ICE deportation officers, Border Patrol agents, and USCIS asylum officers, and greatly increases number of deportation flights.

    – No unaccompanied minors can be removed, and some of these minors will receive attorneys, either pro bono or taxpayer funded.

    – Ends some catch and release, but not all (families and unaccompanied minors not detained).

    – DHS will have 90 days to set this new system up before it takes effect.

    – There is a provision in the bill that would allow the President to suspend the “shut down” authority.
    It says: “Authorizes the President to suspend the border emergency on an emergency basis for up to 45 days if it is in the national interest.”

    Context: The border has seen at least 5,000 encounters almost every single day the last couple years under Biden. If this bill were signed into law, the border would likely be shut down on the first day it takes effect.

    FOX is told by the architects of this legislation the status quo right now is when the border is overwhelmed, “release everyone”. They say this bill switches that to, when the border is overwhelmed “remove everyone.”

    This legislation has provisions in it that will upset border hawks and immigration activists at the same time.

    Now we wait to see how both Democrats & Republicans respond. So far, many House GOP members have expressed displeasure, and at least one Democrat Senator (Padilla) has as well.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  66. Again, it could potentially be tweaked, and yes, it is a compromise, meaning it is not a Republican wish list but actual proposed legislation that takes competing interests into account.

    That said, it would immediately alleviate this crisis. You think Biden would immediately exercise his emergency authority? I’d take that bet at $1000, but I say if that’s your concern, pass the bill and DARE HIM TO. If he does, that will hurt his re-election chances badly.

    Which is why he wouldn’t do it.

    And the fact that this would solve the crisis immediately is why Trump doesn’t want it done.

    And the fact Trump doesn’t want it done is why politicians and dopey conservative media are mobilizing against it, which in turn is why brainless drones who comment on blogs don’t want it done.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  67. That’s a good list, Pat, and refutes some of the things I read earlier, particularly the way the numbers were presented.

    How do things like the Venezuelan and Cuban exceptions fit in?

    Why does Biden have to be dragged to this table? Is he stupid or just evil? My real concern is that, having got here, why would I trust him not to find some “Exceptions” or “Executive orders” to correct injustices or other flimflam.

    Not that I’d trust Trump on much, as chaos is his motto.

    If what you list is true, it’s a great deal. I just don’t trust anyone much right now.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  68. So you think COVID is still an emergency?

    Nah. My governor gave that up last year, although she tried to ban guns under the health laws so who knows.

    That’s why we can’t resurrect Title 42.

    I supported the Remain in Mexico policy. I opposed Biden rescinding it. But the fact is, that policy affected very few people, and was subjected to all kinds of legal challenges (because it was executive action and not legislation, which is what we need).

    We need a legislative fix.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  69. And I still suggest that Trump is getting a lot of support from people who have been trying to compete with waves of low-wage immigrants, particularly in the construction trades, for years. They aren’t quite ready to sign on to “This time it will be different.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  70. That’s a good list, Pat, and refutes some of the things I read earlier, particularly the way the numbers were presented.

    How do things like the Venezuelan and Cuban exceptions fit in?

    My understanding is that the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program for people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua are not affected.

    Why does Biden have to be dragged to this table? Is he stupid or just evil? My real concern is that, having got here, why would I trust him not to find some “Exceptions” or “Executive orders” to correct injustices or other flimflam.

    Not that I’d trust Trump on much, as chaos is his motto.

    He’s a Democrat. They are far more favorable to illegals than most of us are. It’s one of my many points of policy disagreement with them. Plus he is arrogant.

    As I say, dare Biden to declare the emergency exception. It would have to be a situation where we are seeing the 5000+ a day that we have been seeing and he says “nope, we have a countervailing emergency that says we can’t turn these people away.” It’s possible but I don’t see him doing that before the election.

    If what you list is true, it’s a great deal. I just don’t trust anyone much right now.

    It’s a great deal. Try persuading any Trumpist drone of the facts, though.

    Melugin is solid and the Border Patrol union backs the bill, at least the border control aspects (while not weighing in on the spending). But what do they know? Trumpist drones sitting at their keyboards know way more than Bill Melugin or the Border Patrol.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  71. And I still suggest that Trump is getting a lot of support from people who have been trying to compete with waves of low-wage immigrants, particularly in the construction trades, for years. They aren’t quite ready to sign on to “This time it will be different.”

    They aren’t ready to sign onto something that will actually fix the problem because they are being misled by people who want the crisis to continue so they will vote for Trump.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  72. And, by the way, the emergency suspension of the authority to close the border is, I believe, a maximum of 45 days in a calendar year.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  73. Is it time to give up on the GOP and start a replacement party?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  74. I doubt it. I think the most realistic option is to trounce this version in the polls until it restores its sanity.

    I re-registered GOP in California to cast a meaningless vote for Haley in the primary. I’m doing that much to “reform from within.” But in the end they have to be defeated. Up and down the ticket.

    They don’t support my views any more. They’re not really for responsible spending or debt reduction. They don’t support Ukraine. They don’t believe in the rule of law. They aren’t willing to take real action on the border. They are completely worthless. All they are good for is pandering to poorly educated and ignorant voters for small-dollar donations.

    We definitely don’t need a third-party choice in this upcoming election. That will elect Trump.

    Patterico (2b55ca)

  75. Basically the GOP has declared that it doesn’t want the support of people who have my policy views or views about character in office.

    I take them seriously. If they don’t want my support, they will not get it.

    Patterico (dcca7c)

  76. Once I hear that we cannot have this bill because Biden might not act on some elements, to me the jig is up. If Biden doesn’t act, then you have a mammoth issue to run against him while also getting the funding measures that are desperately needed given the numbers problems. The problem really is if Biden DOES act. The current incarnation of the GOP…something out of a Bizarro multiverse….wants the issue more than it wants progress, compromise, and doing the right thing. They understand that it is going to be hard enough to drag a likely convicted felon across the goal line…muting his signature issue with compromise might break the camel’s back.

    In reality, there’s still plenty to argue against Biden….together with the optics of a rapidly aging old man. But despite efforts to frame him simultaneously as a dementia-addled retard and the big-guy international crime lord, he’s kept the train on the rails. I don’t worry about him tearing DoJ apart and staffing it with loyalists. He too seems to get the global importance of Ukraine, while the Right’s fave Tucker desperately tries to tease out the truth from his buddy Vlad (yeah, that won’t be a dumpster fire /sarc). I’m not to the point of pulling the lever for Biden…in my case it’s somewhat irrelevant….but if margin has some psychological effect, I may yet be motivated. We have months and one big trial to yet work our way through. There’s still a fading hope that people will do the right thing…yeah even the 2-digit-IQ folks…..

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  77. We definitely don’t need a third-party choice in this upcoming election. That will elect Trump.

    It depends on who is running. Center-right might have the opposite effect.

    BTW, the Haley campaign is asking if I want to be a delegate.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  78. “a lot of support from people who have been trying to compete with waves of low-wage immigrants, particularly in the construction trades”

    I think the GOP still should be the party of law and order and having a coherent border and immigration policy. You don’t need a reality TV personality to do that. And the answer doesn’t need to be “no immigrants” as there are sectors that would benefit from guest workers +. We need to turn down the rhetoric on both sides so we can actually do legislation and work toward compromise.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  79. We need to turn down the rhetoric on both sides so we can actually do legislation and work toward compromise.

    Well, there is one correction we could make on our side. And the problem, I agree is not “immigrants” but the twin problems of low-wage imports and non-college job exports. Yeah, “in the long run” and economics, but voters eat in the short run.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  80. “they have to be defeated. Up and down the ticket.”

    Unfortunately this seems to be true. There might be a few good ones but not many. I’m not sure if there are enough disaffected people to make a 3rd party relevant. The horde is MAGA. Step 1 is for MAGA to continue to lose. Eventually people will get the clue. It’s a religious fervor though and that makes it painfully slower. At some point, the voices from the Right will get the permission to abandon ship. Right now, it’s awfully dicey whether a 3rd party helps or hurts Trump and there is not some wildly charismatic person to make that run. Maybe Sununu…probably not Manchin. Hogan I like but he’s not exactly electric. Haley will likely not bolt the GOP or want to be viewed as sabotaging Trump (who wants Trumpers stalking you and your family?). I just can’t imagine a moderate ticket winning any but a handful of states unless something miraculous happens viz a viz Trump and Biden. I get that it’s better to be for something than to just wish to burn something down….but we probably don’t have that luxury.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  81. > It depends on who is running. Center-right might have the opposite effect.

    If the election goes to the House, Trump wins. The Republicans control a majority of state delegations, and the Republicans in Congress aren’t gonna vote for anyone other than Trump.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  82. Yeah, this:
    https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/05/under-the-senates-atrocious-border-bill-everybody-gets-asylum/

    Anything that “codifies” near 5k migrants per day is insane.

    That alone, undermines this whole bill and shame on the Senate GOP for agreeing to this particular framework.

    Not to mention that any judicial controversies will be done at the DC circuit. That, right there, is a legit poison pill. Hence, why I don’t think Democrats were negotiating in good faith.

    whembly (5f7596)

  83. Anything that “codifies” near 5k migrants per day is insane.

    – This does not mean 5,000 are “allowed in” before this authority kicks in. Single adults would be detained, families would be released via ATD (alternatives to detention), and asylum cases would be fast tracked to months rather than years under a new rapid/expedited expulsion system. Those who fail would be quickly removed from the US. Those who initially pass would be released with work authorization and 90 day supervision until final asylum claim is determined.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  84. @84 Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/7/2024 @ 11:03 am
    What makes you think Biden (or any Democrat administration) would enforce it?

    What has this current administration done to give you the belief, that the restriction provisions of the now dead Senate bill, this administration would enforce in good faith.

    The claims that Biden “can’t do anything” under current laws is myopic.

    whembly (5f7596)

  85. AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 2/7/2024 @ 8:54 am

    I think the GOP still should be the party of law and order

    Enforcement of laws forbidding people to register their children as living in the wrong school district? Enforcement of laws against registering cars in a location with lower auto insurance rates? Enforcement of laws against buying and importing prescription medicines in Canada or Mexico? Enforcement of laws against present a fake vaccine ID card? Enforcement of penalties for making mistakes on e-filed tax returns, even when made by a tax preparer?

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/beware-of-e-filing-your-tax-return-legal-trouble-for-error-privacy-risk-cyberattack-96d31111

    In recent years, courts have upheld harsh financial penalties for taxpayers who thought they had properly e-filed. Christopher Haynes’s certified public accountant e-filed his 2010 return before the deadline in 2011. The IRS rejected the return on a triviality: A Social Security number was entered on a line designated for an employer identification number. Mr. Haynes didn’t know this until he received a penalty notice from the IRS in August 2012. A district court upheld the penalty, ruling in a summary judgment in the government’s favor that Mr. Haynes’s reliance on his CPA to e-file didn’t constitute reasonable cause to abate the penalty. An appellate court later vacated the decision, and the final outcome isn’t yet clear. (Mr. Haynes didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

    Wayne Lee’s CPA failed to e-file his client’s returns for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The accountant told the IRS that the software he used couldn’t handle Mr. Lee’s complex returns. But Mr. Lee said the accountant never told him about this problem. In 2019 the IRS assessed Mr. Lee more than $70,000 in penalties and barred him from applying his six-figure 2014 overpayment to taxes owed in 2015 and 2016. An appellate court ruled that reliance on his CPA wasn’t an excuse for making errors. The court noted that taxpayers can confirm timely filing with the IRS by phone or on the IRS website. Alternatively, instead of e-filing, the preparer can attach Form 8948 (Explanation for Not E-filing) to Form 1040 and file a paper return instead…

    I recall Republicans in Congress weren’t happy with President Biden’s plan to add more agents to the IRS.

    Or this: (Article III Federal courts do this also)

    When a dispute can’t be resolved within the IRS, a taxpayer can petition the Tax Court—either by mail or by e-filing—seeking a favorable outcome. E-filing a petition with the Tax Court, however, also is risky. Antawn Sanders said he encountered technical problems while trying to e-file a Tax Court petition and spent almost an hour trying to submit it before the midnight filing deadline. The document ultimately uploaded 11 seconds into the next day. The court rejected it as late.

    Roy Nutt e-filed his Tax Court petition on the day it was due at 11:05 p.m. Central Time. That meant it arrived at 12:05 a.m., the next day, in Washington, where the Tax Court is located. The court rejected the filing because it was five minutes late. An appeal is pending. Had Mr. Nutt mailed a hard copy to the Tax Court postmarked before midnight, it would have been accepted.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  86. 71 Patterico (dcca7c) — 2/7/2024 @ 8:03 am

    They aren’t ready to sign onto something that will actually fix the problem

    I don’t think they think it will “fix the problem” but they did think it would satisfy the lobbyists.

    I think they know they are selling snake oil and can’t allow anything to pass while a Democrat is president, except maybe right before the election. The Border Patrol union went along with it because it would increase their membership.

    74.

    They aren’t willing to take real action on the border. They are completely worthless.

    They aren’t willing to have their proposals exposed as snake oil. They claim it would work by deterrence.

    Besides, they need an excuse for refusing aid to Ukraine.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  87. There’s an idea going around that some Republicans in the House came up with a trap and an excuse. They would demand action on the border (less opposition to it than deporting long term residents) in exchange for aid to Ukraine. The Democrats would reject it, and they’d have both an issue, and an excuse for denying aid to Ukraine.

    But, to their consternation, the Democrats mostly caved, with assistance from Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), whose career they now want to destroy, and they fell into their own trap.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/border-republicans-ukraine-bill.html

    “A year ago they said, ‘We need a change in the law,’” said Mr. Lankford, frustrated by his Republican colleagues who had been up in arms about the border situation only to suddenly reject the new legislation. “Now the conversation is, ‘Just kidding, we don’t need a change in the law. We just need the president to use the laws they already have.’ That wasn’t where we were before.”

    I say there are two reasons, or three, for this:

    Number one, it could eliminate, or substantially defang, a campaign issue for Trump.

    Number two, the legislation is snake oil. Even HR2 is snake oil.

    Number three, some Republicans needed an excuse to reject aid for Ukraine and they wouldn’t have that if they accepted the immigration deal..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  88. Someone tell me the differences between HR 2 and the Senate bill just nixed that make HR 2 awesome and the Senate bill worse than no bill at all.

    lloyd?

    whembly?

    Patterico (900cde)

  89. Everything failed for the Republicans yesterday.

    1. The big bill is dead, although a vote is still scheduled in the Senate for Wednesday.

    2. Impeachment of Mayorkas failed, because Steve Scalese was away receiving cancer treatment, and a Democrat came out of surgery and went to the floor and votes while in a hospital gown, and other missing Democrats also came to the floor. (The Republican leadership says it will try again)

    3. The standalone bill to aid Israel, which needed a 2/3 vote under suspension of the rules, failed because Democrats rejected that as a political ploy (somehow ignoring that the big bill is dead) and MAGA some Republicans voted against it because it wasn’t paid for (but they would have lost more votes had it been “paid for.”

    President Biden is really desperate to get aid for Ukraine passed. He’s lkike Woodrow Wilson with the League of Nations.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  90. How many people applied for asylum last year? Anyone have a guess?

    What happens if the president, absent new legislation, tells asylum seekers they cannot come into the country? Anyone have a guess?

    Patterico (900cde)

  91. Here’s a summary of HR2. And, note that I picked a summary done by an organization that opposes HR2, just so that there cannot be a claim of favorable bias.

    In summary it includes these elements:

    1. Fund building of the border wall.
    2. Severely limit asylum claims. (See summary below from the link)
    3. Restrict entry by unaccompanied minors
    4. Narrow parole
    5. Criminalize over-staying a visa
    6. Strictly enforce everify
    7. No work authorization (in the Senate bill, work authorization is practically immediate)
    8. No millions for left wing NGOs and legal services (which the Senate bill includes)
    9. No 5,000 threshold. The threshold is 0.
    10. Hire 22,000 more border patrol agents.

    Again, this passed the House many months ago and was DOA in the Senate.

    Partial summary of asylum changes (again, see the link):

    – Raise the initial screening standard so that a noncitizen would have to prove they were “more likely than not” to ultimately qualify for asylum in order to continue pursuing their protection claim and not be quickly removed from the U.S.;
    – Ban the vast majority of asylum seekers from requesting protection at a U.S. border if they traveled through a third country en route to the U.S. and had not already been denied asylum there;
    Generally restrict asylum claims to only those migrants who arrive in the U.S. at an official port of entry;
    – Add exclusions to asylum eligibility, including by enacting restrictions against those who unlawfully received a federal public benefit or could reasonably avoid persecution by relocating to a safer area within their home country;
    – Deny employment authorization if an asylum seeker entered or tried to enter the U.S. at a place other than a port of entry;
    – Require the DHS secretary to expand detention capacity, including by potentially reopening detention facilities that have been closed or whose use has been altered during the Biden administration;

    lloyd (87be35)

  92. Don’t have data for the last FY (obfuscated in “encounters”), but for Oct-Dec 2023 there were about 46,000 asylum requests each month and 45,000 Notices to Appear and about 1000 removals.

    https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/custody-and-transfer-statistics

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  93. That would translate to about 550,000 admissions per year.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  94. What are the differences that you find significant that mean you favor HR 2 and disfavor this bill? Kindly focus on the big items that would really restrict immigration numbers.

    Patterico (858697)

  95. How many people applied for asylum last year? Anyone have a guess?

    What happens if the president, absent new legislation, tells asylum seekers they cannot come into the country? Anyone have a guess?

    Still asking.

    Patterico (858697)

  96. Democrats did not give up on the Senate bill, but all but four Republicans did.

    https://www.newser.com/story/346112/border-bill-defeated-in-senate-vote.html

    The border security and foreign assistance bill that a bipartisan group of senators spent months crafting failed in the Senate Wednesday after a collapse in Republican support. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had championed the bill until his fellow Republicans turned against it amid pressure from Donald Trump, cast the 41st vote against advancing the legislation, leaving it with no chance of reaching the 60-vote threshold, the New York Times reports. Several Democrats also voted against the bill, arguing that some of its border policies were too restrictive. The final vote was 49 to 50.

    Republican Sen. James Lankford was the chief GOP negotiator, and the BBC reports that his “exasperation was clear” as he made a final pitch for it Wednesday. “We knew from the beginning, it wasn’t going to be perfect, but the status quo is untenable,” the Oklahoma lawmaker said. Lankford, one of the few Republicans to vote to advance the bill, said his staff had missed Thanksgiving and Christmas celebrations to work on the legislation. He said a “popular commentator” had threatened to “destroy” him if he tried to pass border reforms during an election year. GOP Sens. Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and Lisa Murkowski also voted to advance the bill.

    Senator Schumer said afterwards that there would be a sepaate vote on just the foreign aid portions of the bill.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  97. See 92 and 93

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  98. What happens if the president, absent new legislation, tells asylum seekers they cannot come into the country? Anyone have a guess?

    If he were to declare an emergency? Probably could, for a while. He’s used other declarations to alter limits. I can’t see how he’d be forced to toe the line the other direction. I could be wrong.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  99. Correction: No one came out of surgery to vote against impeaching Mayorkas, just out of recovery. From newser:

    . Democratic Rep. Al Green showed up in a wheelchair, wearing hospital garb, to cast the deciding vote, the New York Times reports. Green had emergency abdominal surgery on Friday and was still recovering in the hospital Tuesday when the impeachment vote was scheduled.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  100. Democrats did not give up on the Senate bill, but all but four Republicans did.

    Four Democrats plus Sanders voted no. Senators Alex Padilla, Bob Menendez, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  101. newser isn’t a great source.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  102. No one came out of surgery to vote

    No one ever does. They’ve usually got themselves cut open at the moment.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  103. It’s interesting to me that Padilla and Butler voted differently on the issue.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  104. Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 2/7/2024 @ 12:40 pm

    Re: the impeachment and Israel aid votes:

    Speaker Johnson:

    a) Has lost control of the Republican Conference

    b) He can’t count.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  105. The Israel aid bill didn’t fail “because Democrats.” It lost because Speaker Johnson forced a vote on a bill that a majority of Republicans didn’t support and conducted the vote under suspension of the rules. Of course, had he pursued “regular order” with a rule before the bill was considered, the rule would have lost also.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  106. @94 HR2 does not grant immediate work authorization. The Senate bill grants that, which would create a significant magnet for migrants.

    The millions given to left wing immigration activist NGOs, and also legal assistance, are also big negatives for me in the Senate bill.

    As I noted earlier, the 5,000 threshold combined with only a 14% turn back rate under this president means about 1.5 million let in per year, and that’s only the ones we encounter. This is unacceptable, and unsustainable year after year. HR2 doesn’t have that.

    The 45 day emergency period will be abused. HR2 doesn’t have that.

    HR2 commits to border wall construction.

    The asylum rules are mores strict in HR2, as are the restrictions on parole authority. This may be the most important difference between the two bills.

    lloyd (87be35)

  107. Without a work authorization, asylum isn’t very helpful, as it basically means that asylum is available for those wealthy enough to support themselves without working, and not available to those who have to work.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  108. Johnson’s inability to count is mindnumbing. And astonishing

    aphrael (71d87c)

  109. @107 Work authorization is a magnet. That doesn’t mean the absence of work authorization prevents people from making the trek, wealthy or not. To confirm this is true, take a look at the news. It’s literally happening every day right now at unprecedented rates.

    lloyd (7d14a7)

  110. @95

    What are the differences that you find significant that mean you favor HR 2 and disfavor this bill? Kindly focus on the big items that would really restrict immigration numbers.

    Patterico (858697) — 2/7/2024 @ 1:14 pm

    Well… the biggest factor about HR 2 was that it was passedyou can in the House.

    Only the Senate needs to take it up. There’s one more step to pass it, the Senate. Maybe 2 more steps if the Senate hammers out a compromise to invoke a conference hearing to have the House pass the Senate’s compromise on HR2.

    The Senate bill still needs to be pass AND the House would have to consider it. There’s still at least two steps to pass the Senate bill: passage by Senate and passage by House. maybe 3 steps if the House modifies the Senate bill and sends a reconciliation conf for Senate to pass again.

    But to your point, HR2 will really restrict immigrations number because it actually DISINCENTIVIZE the idea of migrants abusing/falsly claiming asylum, as llyod listed:

    2. Severely limit asylum claims. (See summary below from the link)
    3. Restrict entry by unaccompanied minors
    4. Narrow parole
    5. Criminalize over-staying a visa
    6. Strictly enforce everify
    7. No work authorization (in the Senate bill, work authorization is practically immediate)
    8. No millions for left wing NGOs and legal services (which the Senate bill includes)
    9. No 5,000 threshold. The threshold is 0.

    We have to get to a point where we regular turn away economic migrants at the border and deportations.

    whembly (5f7596)

  111. Ugh, forgive my spelling and grammer errors, doing this on my phone. I need to stop doing that.

    whembly (5f7596)

  112. Mike Johnson fought hard but he was outnumbered. Just like the South during The War of Northern Aggression.

    And he will sell it to his constituency, too. Watch and see.

    nk (144a69)

  113. We have to get to a point where we regular turn away economic migrants at the border and deportations.

    No, we have to get to the point where we aren’t at each other’s throats and don’t tolerate politicians who divide us like this. And it’s not just Trump.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  114. > Work authorization is a magnet. That doesn’t mean the absence of work authorization prevents people from making the trek, wealthy or not.

    My point is that to say to a poor person requesting asylum that we are happy for them to stay here but we are unwilling to allow them to earn money to pay for rent and food while they are here *is simply not helpful*, and it makes the offer of a space to stay meaningless — because someone who has fled from the threat of death or serious bodily injury and who isn’t independently wealthy can’t feed or house themselves without working.

    We can let them work, or we can support them, or we can turn them away.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  115. So you think COVID is still an emergency?

    Remain in Mexico was enacted in 2019, before COVID was a thing.

    And while you claim it only stopped 70,000, that’s because there were WAAAAAAAY fewer crossings with WAAAAAAY fewer asylum claims under Trump.
    That 70,000 number would be apx. 6 million under Biden.

    SaveFarris (79ab12)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1052 secs.